similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Allow per-thread re-direction of outs()/errs()

On May 31, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > The attached patch add the ability to programmatically re-direct outs()/errs() to an arbitrary raw_ostream instance, maintaining the raw_ostream instances in a stack structure so clients can push/pop streams at will. The stack is also maintained in thread-local storage, so different threads can re-direct individually. This allows for

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 31, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > The attached patch add the ability to programmatically re-direct > outs()/errs() to an arbitrary raw_ostream instance, maintaining the > raw_ostream instances in a stack structure so clients can push/pop streams > at will. The

On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the use of outs() and (especially) errs() is rampant - a simple grep of the 3.1 source tree shows about 1,500 instances. One of the first things we had to implement in order to make LLVM usable is something very similar to what Justin has proposed. Centralizing control of the output in outs()/errs() would

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > >> > Unfortunately, the use of outs() and (especially) errs() is rampant - a >> simple grep of the 3.1 source tree shows about 1,500 instances. One of the >> first things we had to implement in order to make LLVM

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > In a way, they are. What if I want a debug trace in a multi-threaded >> context? Right now, all threads would just spew to the same stream and the >> result would be unreadable. If you allow threads to setup their own outs()

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: > > >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Chris Lattner > >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] Allow per-thread > re-direction of outs()/errs() > >

On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: >> In a way, they are. What if I want a debug trace in a multi-threaded context? Right now, all threads would just spew to the same stream and the result would be unreadable. If you allow threads to setup their own outs() and errs() streams (transparently to the rest of LLVM), you can intercept these as you see fit, perhaps dumping

On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] Allow per-thread re-direction of outs()/errs() > >> It would be much better for the linker to return its error in a proper way >> (i.e. extending

If I may add my two cents: I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am working on. And I wholeheartedly agree with Justin that it is a problem, if LLVM is allowed to freely write to stdout and stderr as it is a component which can be used in all sorts of code, be it a GUI IDE, a CLI driver, or whatever. Also, I have a number of times wondered about the somewhat unusual use of

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Justin Holewinski < justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 31, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: >> >> > The attached patch add the ability to programmatically re-direct >> outs()/errs() to an arbitrary

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] Allow per-thread re-direction of outs()/errs() > It would be much better for the linker to return its error in a proper way > (i.e. extending llvm/Support/system_error.h like llvm/Object/Error.h does). > The right fix for this is

> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Allow per-thread re-direction of outs()/errs() > Basic block names are useless to the user. I think that depends on the user. If clang is your entry point into the game, then yes, basic block names and many other things going on with the IR are probably meaningless. However, our

On Jun 1, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > This isn't the right approach. Nothing in the library part of the compiler should be hard coding a stream to write to. What are you trying to accomplish? > > There are a lot of places where warning/debug information is passed directly to errs(). For example, take the Linker class. You can tell it to omit errors/warnings, but

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Justin Holewinski >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Justin Holewinski > <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 > >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > > > > > If I may add my two cents: > > > > > > I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am >

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: >> >

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > > > If I may add my two cents: > > > > I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am > > working on. And I wholeheartedly agree with Justin that it is a > > problem, if LLVM is allowed to freely

On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > If I may add my two cents: > > I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am working on. And I wholeheartedly agree with Justin that it is a problem, if LLVM is allowed to freely write to stdout and stderr as it is a component which can be used in all sorts of code, be it a GUI IDE, a CLI driver, or whatever. LLVM

We've had this argument before. IMO LLVM should not be in the business of closing stdout, and no code in lib/ should print to stdout because users may expect output there (-o -). On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Jan-23, at 09:52, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > > > >